Does being kind and loving to everyone else bring social order? Does it?
If all people are kind and loving to everyone else, it seems as if life would be pleasant. However, if even one other person didn't live by that same philosophy, that one person could take advantage of everybody else. Having to obey their own moral code, they would have to obey him. That is the kind thing to do.
Or would they? Does love require full obedience to another person's will? They could be kind to that ruler and not listen to him. Just because they don't do what he says, it doesn't mean that they didn't try to understand, they weren't polite, and that they don't love him. Uh Oh! I see a problem arising. If they don't listen to the self-appointed ruler, then they aren't being obedient to him. If they aren't obeying the ruler, who has power? How can things get done? That's an unreliable system for creating social stability.
Or is it? If the world doesn't listen to that one ruler, or if there isn't even a self-appointed ruler, could the people help each other out and create social stability? People would be benevolent and considerate. Hence, they'd be looking out for each other. So, out of kindness, they would try to help out their neighbours. But, sometimes, doing the kind thing for one person, is doing an inconsiderate thing for another. Just like letting the other team score on you in a soccer game. It's really kind to the other team. But, it's inconsiderate to your teammates. It's near impossible to do the kind thing for everybody. Similarly, doing the kind thing isn't necessarily doing the right thing. It isn't the moral thing. And people not doing the right thing is damaging to the social order in any society because someone has to pay the price somewhere down the line.
It's decided. Love isn't enough. We need something that explains every single moral action one should take, something with a clear guide to what is right. Then, if everybody loves one another, everybody is kind to one another, and if everybody can tell right from wrong, people can be kind to some without harming others.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I don't really understand how this one person can take advantage of everyone else. If he decided to live by a different philosophy wouldn't he be disobeying the world?
ReplyDeleteOkay, Bhenn. You raised some very good points (and did so BEFORE you took a position)--well done. Some things to consider:
ReplyDeleteYou said love as a basis for an ordered civil society would be unreliable: "How can we get things done?" I'm wondering what type of things need getting done? Follow through here.
You also said it is near impossible to do the kind thing for everybody. True enough, but wouldn't the people you hurt or offended (while you tried to be loving) be okay with it because they knew you were acting out of love? Isn't forgiveness intertwined with love? So is there really a conflict here?
Also, you said something pretty radical, I think: that being kind isn't necessarily being moral or doing "right." Before someone comes a long and uses this as a reason to go to war, you need to explore the connection of doing "right" with social order.
Finally you said "We need something that explains every single moral action one should take, something with a clear guide to what is right." You then added, if you coupled this with loving behavior (which would compel people to choose the clearly identified right over the clearly identified wrong), everything would sort out just fine. I get you 100%. Now tell me, isn't that concrete guide to proper action, that amazing moral compass of which you speak actually Confucius's concept of li? Li essentially says that the best choice is one driven by: 1) respect for elders 2) loyalty to family 3) adherence to daily rituals (be truthful, avoid extremes/adhere to the mean, keep appointments, etc.).
If it’s not li, then what else is needed to supplement jen? (The 2nd part of my question!)